You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

'If following assessment a police decision maker considers there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect and the case is one which this Guidance requires to be referred to a prosecutor to determine whether the suspect is to be charged the case shall be so referred'.

From that we know this much:

a) The police have concluded there is sufficient evidence to charge Stokes.

b) The charge under consideration is not the lesser offence of common assault, a charge which the police would bring themsleves without reference to the CPS and falls outside the 'guidance' mentioned above, but is almost certainly the more serious charge of ABH.

c) The only grounds on which the CPS will not procede with a prosecution is if either (i) they assess that they are unlikely to secure a guilty verdict in court (based not so much on the police evidence but by assessing what the defence case might be and taking a judgment on whether it might convince a jury) or (ii) they conclude that a prosecution is against the public interest.

Much as I am delighted to see Stokes in the ODI squad it does rather contradict the ECB stance that he is not available for selection until the CPS decide whether they are going to charge him with ABH. On that note are we expecting a decision this side of Christmas?

He's an odd one, he never seems to do that well for Durham either when he does play these days. I mean you can understand if he's a bit distracted at the minute but I do wonder if he needs a big stage to really focus himself in general.

So what does this all mean then ? Is this good or bad news for Mr Stokes ?

CPS obviously decided they couldn't make GBH or ABH stick. Had they charged him with that I fancy his defence would have got him off (but taken ages to do so).

But having looked further into 'affray' I can see grounds for him getting off this too. "(1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety."

Other than the fella he hit, was anyone else likely to fear for their safety?

The problem is, the longer the Court case drags on, the longer it takes for him to return to Cricket.